Climate change litigation

Climate litigation typically falls into one of five broad areas of law:

• Constitutional law{{nbsp}}{{mdash}} focused on breaches of constitutional rights by the state.
• Administrative law{{nbsp}}{{mdash}} challenging the merits of administrative decision making within existing on-the-books laws, such as not granting permissions for high-emissions projects.
• Private law{{nbsp}}{{mdash}} challenging corporations or other organizations for negligence, nuisance, trespass, public trust, and unjust enrichment.
• Fraud or consumer protection{{nbsp}}{{mdash}} typically challenging companies for misrepresenting information about climate impacts.
• Human rights{{nbsp}}{{mdash}} claiming that failure to act on climate change or to protect related natural resources, such as the atmosphere or the rainforest, fails to protect human rights.{{cite journal |last1=Orangias |first1=Joseph |title=Towards global public trust doctrines: an analysis of the transnationalisation of state stewardship duties |journal=Transnational Legal Theory |date=1 December 2021 |volume=12 |issue=4 |pages=550–586 |doi=10.1080/20414005.2021.2006030 |s2cid=244864136 |doi-access=free}}

These areas are not static. For instance, Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd argues for the new tort of climate change damage and the New Zealand Supreme Court duly ruled in 2024 that this novel civil wrong can be asserted in future proceedings.

The 2017 UN Litigation Report identified 884 cases in 24 countries, including 654 cases in the United States and 230 cases in all other countries combined. As of July 1, 2020, the number of cases has almost doubled to at least 1,550 climate change cases filed in 38 countries (39 including the courts of the European Union), with approximately 1,200 cases filed in the US and over 350 filed in all other countries combined.{{Cite web |title=Global Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review |url=https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34818/GCLR.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126145143/https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34818/GCLR.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y |archive-date=2021-01-26 |website=UN environment programme.}} By December 2022, the number had grown to 2,180, including 1,522 in the U.S.

Scholars have observed a "rapidly growing landscape of climate litigation" (as of 2024) and say that courts are shaping law and governance trajectories, beyond the narrow confines of domestic law.

Courts play a critical role in creating, increasing and imposing accountability on and for public authorities and private actors for climate and related harms caused by their actions or their failure to act. Courts articulate what it means for public and private actors to be accountable in relation to climate (in)action.

National courts have ordered governments to:

• legislate on climate change (e.g. Shrestha v Office of the Prime Minister, 2018);
• define sufficiently ambitious mitigation targets (e.g. Klimaatzaak v Belgium, 2021);
• develop a clear long-term emission-reduction strategy (e.g. Friends of the Irish Environment v Ireland, 2020) or a realistic long-term emission reduction pathway (e.g. Neubauer v Germany, 2021);
• present complete information on how it plans to achieve its statutory carbon budget (e.g. Friends of the Earth v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, 2022);
• comply with a statutory carbon budget (e.g. Grande-Synthe v France, 2021) or to take appropriate measures to achieve a statutory carbon budget (e.g. Oxfam v France, 2021).

{{globalize|2=US|date=July 2023}}

In the United States, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace together with the cities of Boulder, Arcata and Oakland filed against the Export-Import Bank of the United States and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (state-owned enterprises of the United States government), which were accused of financing fossil-fuel projects detrimental to a stable climate, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (case filed in 2002 and settled in 2009).Douglas Starr, [https://www.science.org/content/article/just-90-companies-are-blame-most-climate-change-carbon-accountant-says "The carbon accountant. Richard Heede pins much of the responsibility for climate change on just 90 companies. Others say that's a cop-out"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161111140055/http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/just-90-companies-are-blame-most-climate-change-carbon-accountant-says|date=11 November 2016}}, Science, volume 353, issue 6302, 26 August 2016, pages 858-861.[https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13-ens13-4-3.html#footnote53 Litigation related to climate change] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104035527/https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13-ens13-4-3.html#footnote53|date=4 November 2018}}, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (page visited on 30 November 2016).[http://www.greenpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Global/usa/report/2009/2/court-order-denying-defendant.pdf Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, in the case of Friends of the earth, Greenpeace, Inc. and City of Boulder Colorado versus Peter Watson (Overseas Private Investment Corporation) and Phillip Lerrill (Export-Import Bank of the United States), No. C 02-4106 JSW] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161201081938/http://www.greenpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Global/usa/report/2009/2/court-order-denying-defendant.pdf|date=1 December 2016}}, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2005 (page visited on 30 November 2016).{{Cite book |last=Carlarne |first=Cinnamon Piñon |title=Climate Change Law and Policy: EU and US Approaches |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2010 |isbn=9780199553419 |pages=99–101}}

In 2017, San Francisco, Oakland and other California coastal communities sued multiple fossil-fuel companies for rising sea levels; they lost.

In 2018, the city of New York announced that it is taking five fossil fuel firms (BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Shell) to federal court due to their contribution to climate change (from which the city is already suffering).Oliver Milman, [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/10/new-york-city-plans-to-divest-5bn-from-fossil-fuels-and-sue-oil-companies "New York City plans to divest $5bn from fossil fuels and sue oil companies"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180117025916/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/10/new-york-city-plans-to-divest-5bn-from-fossil-fuels-and-sue-oil-companies|date=17 January 2018}}, The Guardian, 10 January 2018 (page visited on 12 January 2018).

In 2020, Charleston, South Carolina, followed a similar strategy.{{Cite web |date=2020-09-11 |title=Charleston, SC Becomes First City in U.S. South to Sue Big Oil for Climate Costs |url=https://www.ecowatch.com/charleston-climate-lawsuit-big-oil-2647571485.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1?rebelltitem=1 |access-date=2020-09-22 |website=EcoWatch |language=en |archive-date=2020-10-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201026185844/https://www.ecowatch.com/charleston-climate-lawsuit-big-oil-2647571485.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1?rebelltitem=1 |url-status=live}}

In June 2023, Multnomah County, Oregon sued several fossil fuel companies and industry trade groups, seeking at least $50 billion to help the county study and implement harm reduction strategies. The suit also asks for $50 million to cover past damages, and $1.5 billion in future damages. The lawsuit alleges that parties, including ExxonMobil, Chevron and the American Petroleum Institute, deceptively used "pseudo-science, fabricated doubt, and a well-funded, sustained public relations campaign" to subvert scientific consensus over the course of decades.{{Cite news |last=Mindock |first=Clark |date=June 23, 2023 |title=US climate change lawsuit seeks $50 billion, citing 2021 heat wave |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-climate-change-lawsuit-seeks-50-billion-citing-2021-heat-wave-2023-06-22/ |access-date=June 23, 2023}}

In 2018, ten families from European countries, Kenya and Fiji filed a suit against the European Union for the threats against their homes caused by the EU greenhouse emissions.{{cite news |date=24 May 2018 |title=Families from 8 countries sue EU over climate change |url=http://www.france24.com/en/20180524-families-8-countries-sue-eu-over-climate-change |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180529130122/http://www.france24.com/en/20180524-families-8-countries-sue-eu-over-climate-change |archive-date=29 May 2018 |access-date=28 May 2018 |work=France 24 |agency=AFP}} The European Union adopted an anti-slapp directive aiming to protect human right defenders and journalists from lawsuits intended to silence them.{{cite web |title=Anti-SLAPP: Final green light for EU law protecting journalists and human rights defenders |url=https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/03/19/anti-slapp-final-green-light-for-eu-law-protecting-journalists-and-human-rights-defenders/ |access-date=8 August 2024 |website=European Council Council of the European Union |publisher=European Union}}

File:Courtroom European Court of Human Rights 01.JPG ruled that States must protect the population from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health and well-being.]]

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland (2024){{ECLI|ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0409JUD005360020}} was a landmark{{Cite web |last1=Kwai |first1=Isabella |last2=Bubola |first2=Emma |date=9 April 2024 |title=In Landmark Climate Ruling, European Court Faults Switzerland |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/world/europe/climate-human-rights.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240409094611/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/world/europe/climate-human-rights.html |archive-date=9 April 2024 |access-date=9 April 2024 |work=The New York Times}} case of the European Court of Human Rights in which the court ruled that Switzerland violated the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to adequately address climate change. It is the first case in which an international court has ruled that state inaction related to climate change violates human rights.{{cite news |last1=Francis |first1=Ellen |last2=Harlan |first2=Chico |date=9 April 2024 |title=European court rules Switzerland climate inaction violated human rights |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/04/09/europe-climate-change-court-cases-switzerland-portugal-france/ |access-date=10 April 2024 |newspaper=Washington Post}}

On 29 March 2023, the United Nations adopted a resolution calling for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to "strengthen countries' obligations to curb warming and protect communities from climate disaster".{{cite news |last1=O'Malley |first1=Isabella |last2=Beltaji |first2=Dana |date=29 March 2023 |title=UN seeks court opinion on climate in win for island states |url=https://apnews.com/article/vanuatu-un-international-court-climate-change-opinion-64a918c2861f795fb4acf05344dcfebb |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230417171208/https://apnews.com/article/vanuatu-un-international-court-climate-change-opinion-64a918c2861f795fb4acf05344dcfebb |archive-date=17 April 2023 |access-date=17 April 2023 |publisher=AP News}} The ICJ is expected to issue a decision clarifying legal requirements on states to respond to the climate crisis and articulating consequences that countries should face for failure to meet those requirements.The Guardian, 29 Mar. 2023 [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/29/united-nations-resolution-climate-emergency-vanuatu "United Nations Adopts Landmark Resolution on Climate Justice, Resolution Hailed as 'Win for Climate Justice of Epic Proportions' Should Make It Easier to Hold Countries Accountable for Failures"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230429185939/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/29/united-nations-resolution-climate-emergency-vanuatu|date=2023-04-29}}

As of February 2020, Australia had the second most number of cases pending in the world, with almost 200 cases.

Cases in Australia include Torres Strait Islanders v. Australia (2019),{{cite web |title=Daniel Billy and others v Australia (Torres Strait Islanders Petition) |url=http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/petition-of-torres-strait-islanders-to-the-united-nations-human-rights-committee-alleging-violations-stemming-from-australias-inaction-on-climate-change/ |website=Climate Case Chart |publisher=Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law |access-date=2023-02-03 |archive-date=2023-02-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230203174615/http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/petition-of-torres-strait-islanders-to-the-united-nations-human-rights-committee-alleging-violations-stemming-from-australias-inaction-on-climate-change/ |url-status=live}}{{cite journal |last1=Marjanac |first1=Sophie |last2=Jones |first2=Sam Hunter |title=Staying within Atmospheric and Judicial Limits: Core Principles for Assessing Whether State Action on Climate Change Complies with Human Rights |journal=Litigating the Climate Emergency: How Human Rights, Courts, and Legal Mobilization Can Bolster Climate Action |date=2022 |pages=157–176 |doi=10.1017/9781009106214.010|doi-access=free}} in which the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that the Australian government had violated the Islanders' human rights by failure to act on climate change, Youth Verdict v. Waratah Coal (2020),{{cite web |title=Youth Verdict v. Waratah Coal |url=http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/youth-verdict-v-waratah-coal/ |website=Climate Case Chart |publisher=Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law |access-date=2023-02-03 |archive-date=2023-02-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230203174616/http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/youth-verdict-v-waratah-coal/ |url-status=live}} and Sharma v. Minister for the Environment (2020),{{cite web |title=Sharma and others v. Minister for the Environment |url=http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/raj-seppings-v-ley/ |website=Climate Case Chart |publisher=Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law |access-date=2023-02-03 |archive-date=2023-02-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230203174614/http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/raj-seppings-v-ley/ |url-status=live}} in which eight young people unsuccessfully argued for an injunction against the expansion of a Whitehaven coal mine.

In June 2021, after a six year long legal battle, the Court of First Instance ruled that the climate targets of the government of Belgium are too low and therefore "breached the right to life (article 2) and the right to respect for private and family life (article 8)" of the European Convention on Human Rights.{{cite news |last1=Germanos |first1=Andrea |title=Belgium Court Deems Inadequate Climate Policy a Human Rights Violation |url=https://www.ecowatch.com/belgium-court-climate-crisis-human-rights-2653450597.html |access-date=28 June 2021 |agency=Ecowatch |date=19 June 2021 |archive-date=28 June 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210628102752/https://www.ecowatch.com/belgium-court-climate-crisis-human-rights-2653450597.html |url-status=live}}

A group of children in Colombia sued the government to protect the Amazon rainforest from deforestation due to the deforestation's contribution to climate change. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the Colombian rainforest was an "entity subject of rights" requiring protection and restoration.{{Cite web|date=2018-04-05|title=In historic ruling, Colombian Court protects youth suing the national government for failing to curb deforestation|url=https://www.dejusticia.org/en/en-fallo-historico-corte-suprema-concede-tutela-de-cambio-climatico-y-generaciones-futuras/|access-date=2020-07-29|website=Dejusticia|language=en-US|archive-date=2021-04-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210420221429/https://www.dejusticia.org/en/en-fallo-historico-corte-suprema-concede-tutela-de-cambio-climatico-y-generaciones-futuras/|url-status=live}}

{{see also|Grande-Synthe climate case}}

In 2020, an administrative court case in France, required the Macron administration to review their policies to address climate change to make sure they were significant enough to meet Paris Agreement commitments.{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=2020-11-19|title=Court gives France three-month deadline to justify its actions on climate change|url=https://www.thelocal.fr/20201119/court-gives-france-three-month-deadline-to-take-action-on-climate-change|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201119140757/https://www.thelocal.fr/20201119/court-gives-france-three-month-deadline-to-take-action-on-climate-change |archive-date=2020-11-19 |access-date=2020-11-22|website=www.thelocal.fr}}{{Cite web|date=2020-11-19|title=Une avancée historique pour la justice climatique !|url=https://laffairedusiecle.net/une-avancee-historique-pour-la-justice-climatique/|access-date=2020-11-22|website=L'Affaire du Siècle|language=en-US|archive-date=2021-04-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210421213214/https://laffairedusiecle.net/une-avancee-historique-pour-la-justice-climatique/|url-status=live}}{{Cite web|date=2020-11-19|title=France's top court gives government three months to honour climate commitments|url=https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20201119-three-month-deadline-for-france-to-honour-climate-commitments-cop-21|access-date=2020-11-22|website=RFI|language=en|archive-date=2021-04-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210420210833/https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20201119-three-month-deadline-for-france-to-honour-climate-commitments-cop-21|url-status=live}}

In 2021, Germany's supreme constitutional court ruled in Neubauer v. Germany that the government's climate protection measures are insufficient to protect future generations and that the government had until the end of 2022 to improve its Climate Protection Act.{{Cite web|last=Connolly|first=Kate|date=2021-04-29|title='Historic' German ruling says climate goals not tough enough|url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/29/historic-german-ruling-says-climate-goals-not-tough-enough|url-status=live|access-date=2021-05-01|website=The Guardian|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210429134710/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/29/historic-german-ruling-says-climate-goals-not-tough-enough |archive-date=2021-04-29}}

A court case brought by German citizens against their government in 2022 based on a newly minted human right to breathe clean and healthy air could pave the way for future legislation with regards to climate action.{{Cite web |date=2022-10-04 |title=Air pollution: The lawsuits that are holding governments to account |url=https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/10/lawsuits-to-save-the-planet/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231221123229/https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/10/lawsuits-to-save-the-planet/ |archive-date=2023-12-21 |access-date=2023-12-21 |website=World Economic Forum |language=en}}

In 2023, the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court said the government's action on transport and housing fell short under a law setting upper limits for carbon emissions for individual sectors. Under the ruling, Berlin must present emergency programmes to bring its policy on transport and housing back in line with the current Climate Protection Act from 2024 to 2030.{{Cite news |first= |date=2023-11-30 |title=German court finds govt climate policy unlawful, orders emergency action |publisher=Reuters}}

{{Main|Climate Case Ireland}}

In July 2020, Friends of the Irish Environment won a landmark case against the Irish government for failing to take sufficient action to address the climate and ecological crisis.{{Cite news|date=2020-08-01|title=Climate change: 'Huge' implications to Irish climate case across Europe|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53619848|access-date=2021-01-08|archive-date=2021-06-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210611102011/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53619848|url-status=live}} The Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that the Irish government's 2017 National Mitigation Plan was inadequate, specifying that it did not provide enough detail on how it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.{{Cite web|last=Frost|first=Rosie|date=2020-07-31|title=Irish citizens win case to force government action on climate change|url=https://www.euronews.com/living/2020/07/31/irish-citizens-win-case-to-force-government-action-on-climate-change|access-date=2021-01-08|website=living|language=en|archive-date=2021-02-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210203142412/https://www.euronews.com/living/2020/07/31/irish-citizens-win-case-to-force-government-action-on-climate-change|url-status=live}}

{{Main|Climate change in Italy}}

On 5 June 2021, a group of 24 associations and 179 citizens (17 of whom were minor), led by non-profit association A Sud ('To South'), officially filed a lawsuit against the Italian government in the civil court in Rome, with the main goals of holding national institutions "accountable for the state of danger caused by [their] inertia in tackling the climate change emergency", as well as ruling that Italy must cut its greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 92% within 2030.{{Cite web |last=Cotugno |first=Ferdinando |date=6 June 2021 |title=Una causa ambientale allo stato per costringere la politica ad agire |url=https://www.editorialedomani.it/ambiente/una-causa-ambientale-allo-stato-per-costringere-la-politica-ad-agire-sjvy8s22 |url-access=subscription |access-date=5 July 2023 |website=Domani |language=it-IT |archive-date=5 July 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230705103904/https://www.editorialedomani.it/ambiente/una-causa-ambientale-allo-stato-per-costringere-la-politica-ad-agire-sjvy8s22 |url-status=live}}{{Cite web |date=6 June 2021 |title=Anche in Italia c'è una causa allo stato per il clima |url=https://www.ilpost.it/2021/06/06/causa-stato-italiano-cambiamento-climatico/ |access-date=5 July 2023 |website=Il Post |language=it-IT |archive-date=5 July 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230705103906/https://www.ilpost.it/2021/06/06/causa-stato-italiano-cambiamento-climatico/ |url-status=live}} This last target, which set more ambitious targets than the European Green Deal, was based on independent researches on international climate politics made by Climate Analytics and the New Climate Institute.

The co-plaintiffs, which included Fridays For Future members and meteorologist {{Ill|Luca Mercalli|it|WD=}}, were assisted by three attorneys specialized in environmental law. Other notable environmentalist organizations, including Legambiente and Greenpeace, opted not to support the lawsuit: president of Greenpeace Italy, Giuseppe Onufrio, justified the decision by stating that court cases should focus on influential companies, rather than institutions, to become more effective.

{{main|Greenpeace v. Eni}}

On 9 May 2023, Greenpeace Italy and advocacy group ReCommon, together with 12 Italian plaintiffs from several areas directly affected by climate change,{{Cite web |date=9 May 2023 |title=Due organizzazioni ambientaliste e 12 persone italiane hanno fatto causa a Eni e al ministero dell'Economia per i danni del cambiamento climatico |url=https://www.ilpost.it/2023/05/09/causa-eni-greenpeace-italia-recommon-cambiamento-climatico/ |access-date=5 July 2023 |website=Il Post |language=it-IT |archive-date=5 July 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230705103904/https://www.ilpost.it/2023/05/09/causa-eni-greenpeace-italia-recommon-cambiamento-climatico/ |url-status=live}}{{Cite web |last=Talignani |first=Giacomo |date=9 May 2023 |title=Greenpeace, ReCommon e 12 cittadini fanno causa ad Eni per le sue emissioni |url=https://www.repubblica.it/green-and-blue/2023/05/09/news/greenpeace_recommon_eni_emissioni-399398856/ |access-date=5 July 2023 |website=la Repubblica |language=it-IT |archive-date=5 July 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230705103903/https://www.repubblica.it/green-and-blue/2023/05/09/news/greenpeace_recommon_eni_emissioni-399398856/ |url-status=live}} officially announced that they would file a lawsuit against national energy company Eni, as well as the Ministry of Economy and Finance and Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (both involved as co-owners),{{Cite news |last=Levantesi |first=Stella |date=9 May 2023 |title=Italian oil firm Eni faces lawsuit alleging early knowledge of climate crisis |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/09/italian-oil-firm-eni-lawsuit-alleging-early-knowledge-climate-crisis |access-date=5 July 2023 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=8 July 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230708195849/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/09/italian-oil-firm-eni-lawsuit-alleging-early-knowledge-climate-crisis |url-status=live}} requesting to set the beginning of the hearings in November of the same year. Also known as La Giusta Causa ('The Right Cause'),{{Cite web |last=Romano |first=Angelo |date=12 May 2023 |title=L'ENI citata in giudizio da Greenpeace e ReCommon: "Sapeva delle cause del cambiamento climatico ma ha continuato a bruciare combustibili fossili". La prima causa 'climatica' in Italia |url=https://www.valigiablu.it/crisi-climatica-eni-causa-civile/ |access-date=5 July 2023 |website=Valigia Blu |language=it-IT |archive-date=5 July 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230705103905/https://www.valigiablu.it/crisi-climatica-eni-causa-civile/ |url-status=live}}{{Cite web |last=Sclippa |first=Natalie |date=16 February 2024 |title=Processo contro Eni. Greenpeace e Recommon portano in tribunale il colosso energetico |url=https://lavialibera.it/it-schede-1697-processo_contro_eni_greenpeace_e_recommon_portano_in_tribunale_il_colosso_energetico |access-date=22 February 2024 |website=lavialibera |language=it-IT |archive-date=22 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240222113536/https://lavialibera.it/it-schede-1697-processo_contro_eni_greenpeace_e_recommon_portano_in_tribunale_il_colosso_energetico |url-status=live}} and based on the Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell court case, it became the first climate lawsuit ever filed against a private-owned company in Italy.

The allegations focused on Eni's central role in increasing fossil fuel usage throughout the latest decades, despite being aware of the emissions' worst risks. A DeSmog inquiry revealed further evidence supporting the lawsuit's claims: firstly, a study commissioned by Eni itself from an affiliate research centre between 1969 and 1970, which had underlined the risk of a "catastrophic" climate crisis by 2000 posed by an unchecked rise in fossil fuel usage;{{Cite web |last=Levantesi |first=Stella |date=9 May 2023 |title=Italy's Eni Faces Lawsuit Alleging Early Knowledge Of Climate Change |url=https://www.desmog.com/2023/05/09/italys-eni-faces-lawsuit-alleging-early-knowledge-of-climate-change/ |access-date=5 July 2023 |website=DeSmog |language=en-US |archive-date=5 July 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230705103905/https://www.desmog.com/2023/05/09/italys-eni-faces-lawsuit-alleging-early-knowledge-of-climate-change/ |url-status=live}} secondly, a 1978 report produced by Tecneco, another company owned by Eni, which had accurately estimated that the CO₂ concentration would have reached 375-400 ppm by 2000, while noting that such changes to the thermal balance of the atmosphere could have had "serious consequences for the biosphere". DeSmog's investigation also found that Eni's official magazine, {{Ill|Ecos (Eni magazine)|lt=Ecos|it|Ecos (rivista)}}, had repeatedly included references to climate change in articles written throughout the late 1980s and 1990s, while hosting advertising campaigns wrongly claiming that natural gas was a "clean fuel".

The plaintiffs asked the court to "acknowledge the damage and the violation of [their] human rights to life, health and an undisturbed personal life" and rule that Eni must cut their emissions from 2020 levels by 45% within 2030, in order to reach the goals set by the Paris Agreement. In an official response, Eni's board said they would prove the lawsuit was "groundless".

The first hearing of the court case took place on 16 February 2024.{{Cite web |last=Cotugno |first=Ferdinando |date=15 February 2024 |title=Eni alla sbarra. Al via in Italia il primo processo climatico contro l'azienda |url=https://www.editorialedomani.it/ambiente/eni-alla-sbarra-al-via-in-italia-il-primo-processo-climatico-xbzlc2uv |access-date=22 February 2024 |website=Domani |language=it-it |archive-date=22 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240222113535/https://www.editorialedomani.it/ambiente/eni-alla-sbarra-al-via-in-italia-il-primo-processo-climatico-xbzlc2uv |url-status=live}}{{Cite web |last=Levantesi |first=Stella |date=19 February 2024 |title=Climate Trial Against Oil Giant Eni Opens in Italy |url=https://www.desmog.com/2024/02/19/eni-climate-trial-greenpeace-italy-recommon-global-warming-lawsuit-report-climate-denial/ |access-date=22 February 2024 |website=DeSmog |language=en-US |archive-date=22 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240222124533/https://www.desmog.com/2024/02/19/eni-climate-trial-greenpeace-italy-recommon-global-warming-lawsuit-report-climate-denial/ |url-status=live}}

On 29 August 2024, the Constitutional Court of Korea ruled that the absence of legally binding targets for greenhouse gas reductions for 2031-2049 violated the constitutional rights of future generations, saying that this lack of long-term targets shifted an excessive burden to the future.{{cite news |last1=Rashid |first1=Raphael |title=South Korea's climate law violates rights of future generations, court rules |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/29/south-korea-court-climate-law-violates-rights-future-generations |newspaper=The Guardian |date=29 August 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240907103919/https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/29/south-korea-court-climate-law-violates-rights-future-generations |archive-date=7 September 2024 |url-status=live}}

{{main|State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation}}

File:Hans van Loon 2020 Strategic Climate Litigation in the Dutch Courts - a source of inspiration for NGOs elsewhere?.pdf]]

The Urgenda case is an important global precedent for climate litigation. In 2012, the Dutch lawyer Roger Cox gave the idea of judicial intervention to force action against climate change based on government targets for 2030 emissions reductions.Roger Cox, [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/14/judiciary-climate-change?guni=Article:in%20body%20link "It is time for the judiciary to step in and avert climate catastrophe"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161106191600/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/14/judiciary-climate-change?guni=Article:in%20body%20link |date=6 November 2016}}, The Guardian, 14 November 2012 (page visited on 6 November 2016). In 2013, the Urgenda Foundation, with 900 co-plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit against the Government of the Netherlands "for not taking sufficient measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause dangerous climate change".

In 2015, the District Court of The Hague ruled that the government of the Netherlands must do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect its citizens from climate change.[http://www.urgenda.nl/en/climate-case/ Urgenda climate case] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161221110041/http://www.urgenda.nl/en/climate-case/ |date=21 December 2016}}, Urgenda Foundation (page visited on 6 November 2016).Quirin Schiermeier, [http://www.nature.com/news/landmark-court-ruling-tells-dutch-government-to-do-more-on-climate-change-1.17841 "Landmark court ruling tells Dutch government to do more on climate change"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170304225808/http://www.nature.com/news/landmark-court-ruling-tells-dutch-government-to-do-more-on-climate-change-1.17841 |date=4 March 2017}}, Nature, 24 June 2015 (page visited on 5 November 2016).Arthur Neslen, [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/24/dutch-government-ordered-cut-carbon-emissions-landmark-ruling "Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191223054853/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/24/dutch-government-ordered-cut-carbon-emissions-landmark-ruling |date=23 December 2019}}, The Guardian, 24 June 2015 (page visited on 5 November 2016). It was described as a "precedent-setting judgment" and as the "world's first climate liability suit".

In 2018, a court of appeal in The Hague has upheld the precedent-setting judgment that forces the Dutch government to step up its efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions in the Netherlands.{{Cite journal|last=Schiermeier|first=Quirin|date=2018-10-10|title=Dutch court rules that government must help stop climate change|url=http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07007-7|journal=Nature|language=EN|doi=10.1038/d41586-018-07007-7|s2cid=158314143|access-date=1 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190401212249/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07007-7|archive-date=1 April 2019|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}} In December 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld the ruling on appeal. Thus, affirming that the government must cut carbon dioxide emissions by 25% from 1990 levels by the end of 2020, on the basis that climate change poses a risk to human health.{{Cite news |author=Isabella Kaminski |title=Dutch supreme court upholds landmark ruling demanding climate action |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/20/dutch-supreme-court-upholds-landmark-ruling-demanding-climate-action |work=The Guardian |date=20 December 2019 |access-date=20 December 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191220134834/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/20/dutch-supreme-court-upholds-landmark-ruling-demanding-climate-action |archive-date=20 December 2019 |url-status=live}}{{Cite web |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-20/dutch-supreme-court-upholds-landmark-greenhouse-ruling |title=Dutch Supreme Court orders 25% cut in CO2 starting next year |first1=Joost |last1=Akkermans |first2=Ellen |last2=Proper |date=20 December 2019 |access-date=20 December 2019 |work=Bloomberg Businessweek |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191220161525/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-20/dutch-supreme-court-upholds-landmark-greenhouse-ruling |archive-date=20 December 2019 |url-status=live}}

Additional cases in the Netherlands include Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell. The case was decided in May 2021, the district court of The Hague ordered Royal Dutch Shell to cut its global carbon emissions by 45% by the end of 2030 compared to 2019 levels,{{cite web | title = Court orders Royal Dutch Shell to cut carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 | url = https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/26/court-orders-royal-dutch-shell-to-cut-carbon-emissions-by-45-by-2030 | first = Daniel | last = Boffey | work = The Guardian | date = 26 May 2021 | accessdate = 26 May 2021 | archive-date = 26 May 2021 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210526142843/https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/26/court-orders-royal-dutch-shell-to-cut-carbon-emissions-by-45-by-2030 | url-status = live}} and affirmed the responsibility of the company for scope 3 emissions, e.g., emissions from suppliers and customers of its products.{{cite news |last1=Peel |first1=Jacqueline |last2=Neville |first2=Ben |last3=Markey-Towler |first3=Rebekkah |title=Four seismic climate wins show Big Oil, Gas and Coal are running out of places to hide |url=https://theconversation.com/four-seismic-climate-wins-show-big-oil-gas-and-coal-are-running-out-of-places-to-hide-161741 |access-date=29 June 2021 |agency=The Conversation |date=31 May 2021 |archive-date=29 June 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210629105540/https://theconversation.com/four-seismic-climate-wins-show-big-oil-gas-and-coal-are-running-out-of-places-to-hide-161741 |url-status=live}}

In 2024, the New Zealand Supreme Court gave leave for Māori climate activist Mike Smith to sue seven corporations for their roles in causing climate change and the common law harms that resulted.{{cite news

| last1 = Corlett

| first1 = Eva

| title = The Māori climate activist breaking legal barriers to bring corporate giants to court

| date = 6 March 2024

| work = The Guardian

| location = London, United Kingdom

| url = https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/06/mike-smith-maori-climate-activist-right-to-sue-companies

| access-date = 2024-03-06

| archive-date = 2024-03-06

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20240306005620/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/06/mike-smith-maori-climate-activist-right-to-sue-companies

| url-status = live

}}{{cite book

| author = New Zealand Supreme Court

| title = Michael John Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited [2024] {{nowrap|NZSC 5}} — Judgment for case {{nowrap|SC 149/2021}}

| date = 7 February 2024

| publisher = Supreme Court of New Zealand / Kōti Mana Nui o Aotearoa

| location = Wellington, New Zealand

| url = https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZSC-5.pdf

| access-date = 2024-03-06

| archive-date = 2024-03-14

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20240314001329/https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZSC-5.pdf

| url-status = live

}} All respondents in order: Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited, Genesis Energy Limited, Dairy Holdings Limited, New Zealand Steel Limited, Z{{nbsp}}Energy Limited, Channel Infrastructure NZ Limited, and BT Mining Limited.{{cite book

| author = UNEP

| title = Global Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review

| date = 2020

| publisher = UN Environment Programme

| location = Nairobi, Kenya

| isbn = 978-92-807-3835-3

| url = https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34818/GCLR.pdf

| access-date = 2024-03-06

| archive-date = 2024-01-12

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20240112163631/https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34818/GCLR.pdf

| url-status = live

}} Job no: {{nowrap|DEL/2333/NA}}. See pages 22, 38, 42, 44. Note document misspells "Fronterra". Several aspects of Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited are notable. Smith argued that the principles of tikanga Māori{{nbsp}}{{mdash}} a{{nbsp}}traditional system of obligations and recognitions of wrong{{nbsp}}{{mdash}} can be used to inform New Zealand common law. Smith argued that the activities of the seven defendants{{nbsp}}{{mdash}} by directly emitting greenhouse gasses or supplying fossil fuels{{nbsp}}{{mdash}} fall under the established torts of public nuisance and negligence and a new tort of climate change damage. Smith further argued that these seven corporations are harming his tribe's land, coastal waters, and traditional culture. Smith belongs to the Northland tribes of Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahu. This judgment simply allows Smith to now pursue these matters in the High Court. The defendants have indicated that they will seek to convince the court that climate change responses are better left to government policy and not subject to civil litigation.

In Pakistan in 2015 Lahore High Court ruled in Asghar Leghari vs. Federation of Pakistan that the government was violating the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 and the Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (2014{{ndash}}2030) by failing to meet goals set by the policies. In response, a Climate Change Commission was required to be formed in order to help Pakistan meet its climate goals.{{Cite news|last=Gill|first=Anam|date=2015-11-13|title=Farmer sues Pakistan's government to demand action on climate change|language=en|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/pakistan-climatechange-lawsuit-idUSL8N1383YJ20151113|access-date=2021-04-21|archive-date=2021-04-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210421190141/https://www.reuters.com/article/pakistan-climatechange-lawsuit-idUSL8N1383YJ20151113|url-status=live}} The case is considered significant in the history of human rights-based climate litigation.

In 2017, Saul Luciano Lliuya sued RWE to protect his hometown of Huaraz from a swollen glacier lake at risk of overflowing.{{Cite news |agency=Agence France-Presse |date=14 November 2017 |title=Peruvian farmer sues German energy giant for contributing to climate change |newspaper=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/14/peruvian-farmer-sues-german-energy-giant-rwe-climate-change |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190816005958/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/14/peruvian-farmer-sues-german-energy-giant-rwe-climate-change |archive-date=16 August 2019 |access-date=4 July 2019 |via=www.theguardian.com}}

In May 2024, Nicol Melgar Marba, a Typhoon Odette survivor from Dinagat Islands, Philippines, and other victims of climate disasters from around the world filed before the Paris Criminal Court a criminal complaint against French oil company TotalEnergies, demanding compensation for "losses and damages for climate impacts".{{Cite web |last=Cabico |first=Gaea Katreena |date=May 23, 2024 |title='Odette' survivor joins global climate lawsuit vs oil giant |url=https://www.philstar.com/headlines/climate-and-environment/2024/05/23/2357346/odette-survivor-joins-global-climate-lawsuit-vs-oil-giant |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240526024018/https://www.philstar.com/headlines/climate-and-environment/2024/05/23/2357346/odette-survivor-joins-global-climate-lawsuit-vs-oil-giant |archive-date=May 26, 2024 |access-date=2025-06-06 |website=Philippine Star}}

In December 2024 the Supreme Court in South Africa stopped the plans of the government to add 1,500 megawatts of coal-fired power. The court said it is “unlawful and invalid”, and required from the minister and the regulator to pay costs to the complainants. Before it environmentalists already had some victories in South Africa's courts about pollution and drillings.{{cite web |last1=Sguazzin |first1=Antony |title=South African Court Says State Can't Order New Coal Plants |url=https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/investing/2024/12/04/south-african-court-says-state-cant-order-new-coal-plants/ |website=BNN Bloomberg |date=4 December 2024 |access-date=10 December 2024}}

Article 56 of the Constitution of Turkey says that, "Everyone has the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment. It is the duty of the State and citizens to improve the natural environment, to protect the environmental health and to prevent environmental pollution." Turkey has ratified the Paris Agreement and says that its greenhouse gas emissions will be net zero by 2053, but the government has no plan to phase out coal.{{Cite web |date=2022-03-17 |title=37 termik santrali kapatma davası görüldü: Avukatları 'Cumhurbaşkanının yetkisi yok' dedi |url=https://yesilgazete.org/37-termik-santrali-kapatma-davasi-goruldu-avukatlari-cumhurbaskaninin-yetkisi-yok-dedi/ |access-date=2022-05-10 |website=Yeşil Gazete |language=tr-TR |archive-date=2022-06-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220618011903/https://yesilgazete.org/37-termik-santrali-kapatma-davasi-goruldu-avukatlari-cumhurbaskaninin-yetkisi-yok-dedi/ |url-status=live}} As of 2024 two cases have been rejected and one has been partly successful.{{Cite web |title=Turkey Archives |url=https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-jurisdiction/turkey/ |access-date=2023-12-19 |website=Climate Change Litigation |language=en-US |archive-date=2023-12-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231219125457/https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-jurisdiction/turkey/ |url-status=live}}

In 2020 and 2021 sixteen nongovernment organizations filed lawsuits requesting the president shutdown 37 large coal-fired power stations and over 600 mines.{{Cite web |date=2022-03-17 |title=Ekoloji Örgütleri, 37 Termik Santralın Kapatılması İçin Cumhurbaşkanı'na Dava Açtı |url=https://k2haber.com.tr/ekoloji-orgutleri-37-termik-santralin-kapatilmasi-icin-cumhurbaskanina-dava-acti/ |access-date=2022-05-10 |website=K2 Haber |language=tr |archive-date=2022-07-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220701040656/https://k2haber.com.tr/ekoloji-orgutleri-37-termik-santralin-kapatilmasi-icin-cumhurbaskanina-dava-acti/ |url-status=live}}{{Cite news |title=16 NGOs file a lawsuit, request shutdown of 37 thermal plants |work=Bianet |url=https://bianet.org/english/law/230466-16-ngos-file-a-lawsuit-request-shutdown-of-37-thermal-plants |access-date=2023-06-08 |archive-date=2024-03-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240316004019/https://bianet.org/haber/16-ngos-file-a-lawsuit-request-shutdown-of-37-thermal-plants-230466 |url-status=live}} In addition to climate change arguments the plaintiffs alleged that cancer cases are increased and the COVID-19 pandemic was worsened by their air pollution.{{Cite web |title=34 termik santral ve 606 madene karşı açılan dava için Guinness başvurusu |url=https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/turkiye/34-termik-santral-ve-606-madene-karsi-acilan-dava-icin-guinness-basvurusu-1933621 |access-date=2022-05-10 |website=Cumhuriyet |language=tr |archive-date=2022-05-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220509210529/https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/turkiye/34-termik-santral-ve-606-madene-karsi-acilan-dava-icin-guinness-basvurusu-1933621 |url-status=live}} The case was rejected by the 11th administrative court of Ankara for various reasons.{{Cite web |title=Yeşil Artvin Derneği and others v. Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye, Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change and Energy Market Regulatory Authority |url=https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/yesil-artvin-dernegi-and-others-v-presidency-of-the-republic-of-turkiye-ministry-of-environment-urbanization-and-climate-change-and-energy-market-regulatory-authority/ |access-date=2023-12-19 |website=Climate Change Litigation |language=en-US |archive-date=2023-12-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231219125748/https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/yesil-artvin-dernegi-and-others-v-presidency-of-the-republic-of-turkiye-ministry-of-environment-urbanization-and-climate-change-and-energy-market-regulatory-authority/ |url-status=live}}

In 2023 young climate activists opened a case alleging that the nationally determined contribution (NDC) was inadequate.{{Cite web |title=Young climate activists file lawsuit against Erdoğan over 'inadequate emission goals' |url=https://bianet.org/haber/young-climate-activists-file-lawsuit-against-erdogan-over-inadequate-emission-goals-278474 |access-date=2023-12-05 |website=Bianet |language=en |archive-date=2023-12-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231205135610/https://bianet.org/haber/young-climate-activists-file-lawsuit-against-erdogan-over-inadequate-emission-goals-278474 |url-status=live}}{{Cite web |title=A.S. & S.A. & E.N.B v. Presidency of Türkiye & The Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change |url=https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/as-sa-enb-v-presidency-of-turkiye-the-ministry-of-environment-urbanization-and-climate-change/ |access-date=2023-12-19 |website=Climate Change Litigation |language=en-US |archive-date=2023-12-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231219125753/https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/as-sa-enb-v-presidency-of-turkiye-the-ministry-of-environment-urbanization-and-climate-change/ |url-status=live}} The three youth climate activists filed a lawsuit against President Erdoğan and the Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change because Turkey's Nationally Determined Contribution is not to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. They alleged that there is no effective climate action plan for energy. They alleged that these violate their human rights stated in the constitution, such as the environmental clause in the constitution.{{Cite web |date=10 May 2023 |title=Young climate activists file lawsuit against Erdoğan over 'inadequate emission goals' |url=https://bianet.org/5/94/278474-young-climate-activists-file-lawsuit-against-erdogan-over-inadequate-emission-goals |website=Bianet |access-date=1 January 2024 |archive-date=10 May 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230510120545/https://bianet.org/5/94/278474-young-climate-activists-file-lawsuit-against-erdogan-over-inadequate-emission-goals |url-status=live}} The Council of State rejected the case on the grounds that it was an ‘annulment of an administrative action’ case but the NDC is not an administrative action.

In 2022 and 2023 cases were brought about Lake Marmara drying up.{{Cite web |title=S.S. Gölmarmara ve Çevresi Su Ürünleri Kooperatifi v. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Manisa Directorate of Provincial Agriculture and Forestry |url=https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ss-golmarmara-ve-cevresi-su-urunleri-kooperatifi-v-republic-of-turkiye-ministry-of-agriculture-and-forestry-manisa-directorate-of-provincial-agriculture-and-forestry/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231219125500/https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ss-golmarmara-ve-cevresi-su-urunleri-kooperatifi-v-republic-of-turkiye-ministry-of-agriculture-and-forestry-manisa-directorate-of-provincial-agriculture-and-forestry/ |archive-date=2023-12-19 |access-date=2023-12-19 |website=Climate Change Litigation |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |last=Merkezi |first=Haber |date=2024-03-26 |title=Marmara Gölü Tarım Alanına Dönüştürülemez! |url=https://www.iklimhaber.org/marmara-golu-tarim-alanina-donusturulemez/ |access-date=2024-09-25 |website=İklim Haber |language=tr}} In 2024 a court decided to pause the process of reclassifying the land as not wetland, on the grounds that it could be rewetted: Doğa are calling for the court to annul the reclassification.{{Cite web |date=2024-08-02 |title=Doğa Derneği {{!}} Doğa Biziz! |url=https://dogadernegi.org/manisa-marmara-golunu-tarim-alanina-donusturen-uygulamalara-mahkemeden-yurutmeyi-durdurma-karari/ |access-date=2024-09-25 |language=tr-TR}}

{{Update section|date=September 2024|reason=result of cases? which UK cases most notable now?}}

In December 2020, three British citizens, Marina Tricks, Adetola Onamade, Jerry Amokwandoh, and the climate litigation charity, Plan B, announced that they were taking legal action against the UK government for failing to take sufficient action to address the climate and ecological crisis.{{Cite web|title=New Youth Climate Lawsuit Launched Against UK Government on Five Year Anniversary of Paris Agreement|url=https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/12/12/youth-climate-lawsuit-uk-boris-johnson-five-year-anniversary-paris-agreement|access-date=2021-01-08|website=DeSmog|date=12 December 2020|language=en|archive-date=2020-12-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201224161802/https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/12/12/youth-climate-lawsuit-uk-boris-johnson-five-year-anniversary-paris-agreement|url-status=live}}{{Cite web|title=Young People v UK Government: Safeguard our Lives and our Families!|url=https://planb.earth/plan-b-v-government-bailouts-for-polluters/|access-date=2021-04-14|website=Plan B|language=en-US|archive-date=2021-04-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210416183432/https://planb.earth/plan-b-v-government-bailouts-for-polluters/|url-status=live}} The plaintiffs announced that they will allege that the government's ongoing funding of fossil fuels both in the UK and other countries constitute a violation of their rights to life and to family life, as well as violating the Paris Agreement and the UK Climate Change Act of 2008.{{Cite web|date=2020-12-11|title='A quantum leap for climate action': UK pledges to end support for overseas oil and gas projects|url-access=subscription|first1=Cecilia|last1=Keating|url=https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4024895/quantum-leap-climate-action-uk-pledges-end-support-overseas-oil-gas-projects|access-date=2021-01-08|website=BusinessGreen|language=en|archive-date=2021-04-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210420173001/https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4024895/quantum-leap-climate-action-uk-pledges-end-support-overseas-oil-gas-projects|url-status=live}}

In 2022, it was claimed in McGaughey and Davies v Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd that the directors of the UK's largest pension fund, USS Ltd had breached their duty to act for proper purposes under the Companies Act 2006 section 171, by failing to have a plan to divest fossil fuels from the fund's portfolio. The claim did not succeed in the High Court,[2022] EWHC 1233 (Ch) and B Mercer, 'Lecturers' USS lawsuit frustrated by centuries-old precedent' (24 May 2022) [https://www.pensions-expert.com/Law-Regulation/Lecturers-USS-lawsuit-frustrated-by-centuries-old-precedent?ct=true Pensions Expert] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230206192540/https://www.pensions-expert.com/Law-Regulation/Lecturers-USS-lawsuit-frustrated-by-centuries-old-precedent?ct=true |date=2023-02-06}} and the claimants appealed to the Court of Appeal, being granted permission for a June 2023 hearing.T Williams, 'Commit to restoring '£7,000' pension losses now, say USS members' [https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/commit-restoring-ps7000-pension-losses-now-say-uss-members Times Higher Ed] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230302123912/https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/commit-restoring-ps7000-pension-losses-now-say-uss-members |date=2023-03-02}} The case alleges that the right to life must be used to interpret duties in company law, and that because fossil fuels must cease to exist, any investments using them pose a "risk of significant financial detriment".E McGaughey, 'Holding USS Directors Accountable, and the Start of the End for Foss v Harbottle?' (18 July 2022) [https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2022/07/holding-uss-directors-accountable-and-start-end-foss-v-harbottle Oxford Business Law Blog] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230206193649/https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2022/07/holding-uss-directors-accountable-and-start-end-foss-v-harbottle |date=2023-02-06}}

In February 2023, ClientEarth filed a derivative action claim against Shell's board of directors for putting the company at risk by not transitioning away from fossil fuels quickly enough.{{cite web |title=We're taking Shell's Board of Directors to court |url=https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/news/we-re-taking-legal-action-against-shell-s-board-for-mismanaging-climate-risk/ |website=ClientEarth |date=9 February 2023 |access-date=10 February 2023 |archive-date=10 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230210121414/https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/news/we-re-taking-legal-action-against-shell-s-board-for-mismanaging-climate-risk/ |url-status=live}} ClientEarth said the lawsuit marked "the first time ever that a company's board has been challenged on its failure to properly prepare for the energy transition".

File:Xiuhtezcatl Martinez for Standing Strong Project (cropped).jpg and in the Martinez v. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission case.]]

As of February 2020, the U.S. had the most pending cases with over 1,000 in the court system. Examples include Connecticut v. ExxonMobil Corp. and Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. In the United States climate change litigation addresses existing principal laws to make their claim, most of them focusing on private and administrative law. The most popular principal laws to use are NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act), with 322 cases filed under its jurisdiction, the Clean Air Act, with 215 cases filed under its jurisdiction, the Endangered Species Act, with 163 cases filed under its jurisdiction. As more efforts continue on the front of climate change, as of August 2022, the federal government continues to approve agreements and class actions in terms of additional climate change initiatives. In addition, since 2015, there are about two dozen liability and fraud cases brought against some of the world's largest oil companies by various states for their role in denying climate policy leading to increased risks and costs borne to state governments. These states include New Jersey, District of Columbia, Delaware, Connecticut, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Like Minnesota and the District of Columbia before it, New Jersey has also included the industry's top US trade group, the American Petroleum Institute in addition to ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, Chevron, BP and ConocoPhillips.{{cite web |title=August 2022 Updates to the Climate Case Charts {{!}} Sabin Center for Climate Change Law |url=https://climate.law.columbia.edu/news/august-2022-updates-climate-case-charts |website=Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law |access-date=2022-10-24 |archive-date=2022-10-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221024211910/https://climate.law.columbia.edu/news/august-2022-updates-climate-case-charts |url-status=live}}{{Cite web|title=U.S. Climate Change Litigation|url=http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/us-climate-change-litigation/|access-date=2021-11-18|website=Climate Change Litigation|language=en-US|archive-date=2021-11-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211123062239/http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/us-climate-change-litigation/|url-status=live}}{{Cite web |date=2022-10-18 |title=New Jersey latest state to sue oil companies over climate misinformation |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/18/new-jersey-sues-oil-companies-climate-crisis-misinformation |access-date=2023-01-28 |website=the Guardian |language=en |archive-date=2023-01-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230128204514/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/18/new-jersey-sues-oil-companies-climate-crisis-misinformation |url-status=live}}

In the Endangered Species Act (ESA) case, Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, the Supreme Court stated that the ESA mandates federal agencies to insure their actions do not jeopardize any species that are listed as endangered in the ESA.{{Cite book|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/adjudicating-climate-change/8FD6426447A7AB717946EDF8AE8B321F|title=Adjudicating Climate Change: State, National, and International Approaches|date=2009|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-87970-5|editor-last=Burns|editor-first=William C. G.|location=Cambridge|doi=10.1017/cbo9780511596766|editor-last2=Osofsky|editor-first2=Hari M.|access-date=2021-11-23|archive-date=2021-11-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211123063737/https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/adjudicating-climate-change/8FD6426447A7AB717946EDF8AE8B321F|url-status=live}} Climate change litigation cases that use the ESA primarily focus on articles 7 and 9 of the statue. Article 7 states that all actions carried out by federal agencies must be unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence or result in the destruction of endangered species. Article 9 focuses not just on federal agencies but everybody, banning the taking of any endangered species by any party, be it federal, state, or private.

The first step for climate change activists is to make sure that species threatened by climate change are listed on the ESA by the [https://www.fws.gov Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)]. Oftentimes this alone can be a lengthy process. In December 2005 the Center for Biological Diversity joined with two other US NGOs (Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council) to petition that the Arctic Polar Bear be listed on the ESA. The FWS under the Bush administration stretched the process out for years, missing many key deadlines and listing the species as "threatened" instead of endangered while the science was clearly in favor of an endangered listing. Facing mass public pressure and scientific consensus the FWS officially listed the species as endangered in May 2008.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) recognizes that actions taken by the US government can have significant environmental impact and requires that all federal agencies consider these environmental implications when doing "major federal actions". This can be done either through an environmental assessment (EA) or a more thorough environmental impact statement (EIS), how thorough the analyzation has to be depends on the nature of the proposed action.{{Cite journal|date=January 2021|title=A Citizens Guide to NEPA|url=https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/get-involved/citizens-guide-to-nepa-2021.pdf|journal=Council on Environmental Quality Executive Office of the President|pages=1–28|access-date=2021-11-23|archive-date=2021-12-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211202022514/https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/get-involved/citizens-guide-to-nepa-2021.pdf|url-status=live}}{{Cite web|title=NEPA - Introduction to Incorporating Climate Change {{!}} Climate Change Resource Center|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/nepa-introduction-incorporating-climate-change|access-date=2021-11-23|website=www.fs.usda.gov|archive-date=2021-11-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211123070210/https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/nepa-introduction-incorporating-climate-change|url-status=live}}

The Clean Air Act (CAA) regulates air pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources. The Act was passed in the 1970s before there was widespread knowledge about greenhouse gases (GHGs) but in 2007 the Supreme Court decided the EPA did have to regulate GHGs under the CAA due to the famous Massachusetts vs. The EPA case.{{Cite web|last=US EPA|first=OP|date=2013-02-22|title=Summary of the Clean Air Act|url=https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act|access-date=2021-11-23|website=www.epa.gov|language=en|archive-date=2013-04-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130424112839/http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act|url-status=live}}

In 2009 the state of California was able to use the CAA to create stronger vehicle emission standards than the national standard, which quickly led to the Obama administration adopting these stricter emission standards on a national level. These standards were called the [https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE)] standards and included regulations of GHGs.

{{main|Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency}}

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency before the Supreme Court of the United States allowed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A similar approach was taken by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer who filed a lawsuit California v. General Motors Corp. to force car manufacturers to reduce vehicles' emissions of carbon dioxide. This lawsuit was found to lack legal merit and was tossed out.{{cite news |last=Lifsher |first=Marc |date=18 September 2007 |title=Global warming lawsuit dismissed |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-sep-18-fi-warmsuit18-story.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091004161743/http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/18/business/fi-warmsuit18 |archive-date=4 October 2009}}{{cite news |last=Tanner |first=Adam |date=18 September 2007 |title=Calif. suit on car greenhouse gases dismissed |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-autos-idUSN1736580020070918 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130215065243/https://www.reuters.com/article/2007/09/18/us-california-autos-idUSN1736580020070918 |archive-date=15 February 2013}} A third case, Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., a class action lawsuit filed by Gerald Maples, a trial attorney in Mississippi, in an effort to force fossil fuel and chemical companies to pay for damages caused by global warming. Described as a nuisance lawsuit, it was dismissed by District Court.{{cite web |last=Pidot |first=Justin R. |year=2006 |title=Global Warming in the Courts – An Overview of Current Litigation and Common Legal Issues |url=http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/enrlp/pdf/GlobalWarmingLit_CourtsReport.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070604183808/http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/enrlp/pdf/GlobalWarmingLit_CourtsReport.pdf |archive-date=4 June 2007 |access-date=13 April 2007 |publisher=Georgetown University Law Center}} However, the District Court's decision was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which instructed the District Court to reinstate several of the plaintiffs' climate change-related claims on 22 October 2009.http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/07/07-60756-CV0.wpd.pdf {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231211090602/http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/07/07-60756-CV0.wpd.pdf |date=2023-12-11}} {{full citation needed|date=November 2012}} The Sierra Club sued the U.S. government over failure to raise automobile fuel efficiency standards, and thereby decrease carbon dioxide emissions.{{cite web |date=12 August 2005 |title=Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit |url=http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2005/August/Day-12/a16037.htm |access-date=13 April 2007 |publisher=United States Environmental Protection Agency |archive-date=2 July 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090702132806/http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2005/August/Day-12/a16037.htm |url-status=live}}{{cite court|litigants=The Sierra Club vs. Stephen L. Johnson (United States Environmental Protection Agency)|court=United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|opinion=03-10262|date=20 January 2006|url=http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310262.pdf|access-date=13 April 2007}}

{{main|Held v. Montana}}

Held v. Montana was the first constitutional law climate lawsuit to go to trial in the United States, on June 12, 2023.{{cite news |last1=Noor |first1=Dharna |title=Young Montana residents bring climate change case to court for first time ever |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/12/montana-young-residents-first-ever-climate-change-trial |newspaper=The Guardian |date=12 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230612103609/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/12/montana-young-residents-first-ever-climate-change-trial |archive-date=12 June 2023 |url-status=live}} The case was filed in March 2020 by sixteen youth residents of Montana, then aged 2 through 18,{{Cite news |last1=Uyeda |first1=Ray Levy |title=Fossil fuels v our future: young Montanans wage historic climate fight |newspaper=The Guardian |date=April 13, 2022 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/13/young-people-montana-fossil-fuels-climate-crisis |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230310133419/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/13/young-people-montana-fossil-fuels-climate-crisis |archive-date=March 10, 2023 |url-status=live}} who argued that the state's support of the fossil fuel industry had worsened the effects of climate change on their lives, thus denying their right to a "clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations"{{cite web |title=The Constitution of the State of Montana |url=https://courts.mt.gov/external/library/docs/72constit.pdf |website=courts.mt.gov |publisher=Montana Judicial Branch |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230528082413/https://courts.mt.gov/external/library/docs/72constit.pdf |archive-date=May 28, 2023 |date=March 22, 1972 |url-status=live}}^{:Art. IX, § 1} as required by the Constitution of Montana.{{Cite news |last1=Gelles |first1=David |title=In Montana, It's Youth vs. the State in a Landmark Climate Case |newspaper=The New York Times |date=March 24, 2023 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/24/climate/montana-youth-climate-lawsuit.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230614235620/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/24/climate/montana-youth-climate-lawsuit.html |archive-date=June 14, 2023 |url-status=live |issn=0362-4331}} On August 14, 2023, the trial court judge ruled in the youth plaintiffs' favor, although the state indicated it would appeal the decision.{{cite news |last1=Hanson |first1=Amy Beth |last2=Brown |first2=Matthew |title=Young environmental activists prevail in first-of-its-kind climate change trial in Montana |url=https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-youth-montana-trial-c7fdc1d8759f55f60346b31c73397db0 |work=AP News |date=August 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230817023428/https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-youth-montana-trial-c7fdc1d8759f55f60346b31c73397db0 |archive-date= August 17, 2023 |url-status=live}} Montana's Supreme Court heard oral arguments on July 10, 2024, its seven justices taking the case under advisement.{{cite news |last1=Brown |first1=Matthew |last2=Hanson |first2=Amy Beth |title=Republicans urge reversal of landmark ruling in Montana climate change lawsuit by young plaintiffs |url=https://apnews.com/article/youth-climate-lawsuit-montana-supreme-court-faece0aec42abc7f5302c40e31faacea |work=AP News |date=July 10, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240711020853/https://apnews.com/article/youth-climate-lawsuit-montana-supreme-court-faece0aec42abc7f5302c40e31faacea |archive-date=July 11, 2024 |url-status=live}} On December 18, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the county court ruling.{{cite news |last1=Zraic |first1=Karen |title=Youth Climate Activists Get Major Win in Montana Supreme Court |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/18/climate/held-montana-youth-climate-lawsuit.html |work=The New York Times |date=18 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241219000610/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/18/climate/held-montana-youth-climate-lawsuit.html |archive-date=19 December 2024 |url-status=live}}

{{Main|Mayanna Berrin v. Delta Airlines Inc.}}

Mayanna Berrin v. Delta Airlines Inc. is a civil action lawsuit about Delta Air Lines' claim of carbon neutrality.

After the landmark ruling of the Netherlands in 2015, groups in other countries tried the same judicial approach.[http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/What-we-do/Demand-Climate-Justice/The-Climate-Justice-movement-across-the-globe/ "The Climate Justice movement across the globe"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161106185936/http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/What-we-do/Demand-Climate-Justice/The-Climate-Justice-movement-across-the-globe/ |date=6 November 2016}}, Greenpeace, 19 August 2015 (page visited on 6 November 2016).Jonathan Watts, [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/17/we-should-be-on-the-offensive-james-hansen-calls-for-wave-of-climate-lawsuits "'We should be on the offensive' – James Hansen calls for wave of climate lawsuits"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171117112504/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/17/we-should-be-on-the-offensive-james-hansen-calls-for-wave-of-climate-lawsuits |date=17 November 2017}}, The Guardian, 17 November 2017 (page visited on 17 November 2017).Center for Public Integrity, [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/17/big-oil-climate-change-lawsuits-environment "Venue of last resort: the climate lawsuits threatening the future of big oil "] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171217100815/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/17/big-oil-climate-change-lawsuits-environment |date=17 December 2017}}, The Guardian, 17 December 2017 (page visited on 17 December 2017). For instance, groups went to court in order to protect people from climate change in Brazil,{{Cite web|title=First climate case reaches Brazil's Supreme Court|url=https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/first-climate-case-reaches-brazils-supreme-court/|access-date=2021-08-31|website=Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment|language=en-GB|archive-date=2021-08-31|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210831173827/https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/first-climate-case-reaches-brazils-supreme-court/|url-status=live}} Belgium, India,Reuters, [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/07/nine-year-old-ridhima-pandey-sues-indian-government-over-climate-change-inaction "Nine-year-old sues Indian government over climate change inaction"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170409111454/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/07/nine-year-old-ridhima-pandey-sues-indian-government-over-climate-change-inaction |date=9 April 2017}}, The Guardian, 7 April 2017 (page visited on 9 April 2017). New Zealand, Norway,Tone Sutterud and Elisabeth Ulven, [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/14/norway-sued-over-arctic-oil-exploration-plans "Norway sued over Arctic oil exploration plans"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171117131514/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/14/norway-sued-over-arctic-oil-exploration-plans |date=17 November 2017}}, The Guardian, 14 November 2017 (page visited on 17 November 2017). South Africa,Tessa Khan, [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/08/how-climate-change-battles-are-increasingly-being-fought-and-won-in-court "How climate change battles are increasingly being fought, and won, in court"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170309112346/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/08/how-climate-change-battles-are-increasingly-being-fought-and-won-in-court |date=9 March 2017}}, The Guardian, 8 March 2017 (page visited on 9 March 2017). Switzerland[http://ainees-climat.ch/ueber-uns/ Ainées pour la protection du climat] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161106062112/http://ainees-climat.ch/ueber-uns/ |date=6 November 2016}}, 2016 (page visited on 5 November 2016). and the United States.John Vidal, [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/27/worlds-largest-carbon-producers-face-landmark-human-rights-case "World's largest carbon producers face landmark human rights case"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161106191539/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/27/worlds-largest-carbon-producers-face-landmark-human-rights-case|date=6 November 2016}}, The Guardian, 27 July 2016 (page visited on 6 November 2016).

There are also cases that have been dismissed, whether due to lack of standing (e.g. Carvalho v Parliament and Council, 2021) or due to the limits of judicial functions under the doctrine of the separation of powers (e.g. Juliana v United States, 2020).{{Cite journal |last1=Kotzé |first1=Louis J. |last2=Mayer |first2=Benoit |last3=van Asselt |first3=Harro |last4=Setzer |first4=Joana |last5=Biermann |first5=Frank |last6=Celis |first6=Nicolas |last7=Adelman |first7=Sam |last8=Lewis |first8=Bridget |last9=Kennedy |first9=Amanda |last10=Arling |first10=Helen |last11=Peters |first11=Birgit |date=2024 |title=Courts, climate litigation and the evolution of earth system law |journal=Global Policy |language=en |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=5–22 |doi=10.1111/1758-5899.13291 |issn=1758-5880 |doi-access=free}} 50x50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

{{main|Juliana v. United States}}

In 2015, a number of American youth, represented by Our Children's Trust, filed a lawsuit against the United States government, contending that their future lives would be harmed due to the government's inactivity towards mitigating climate change. While similar suits had been filed and dismissed by the courts for numerous reasons, Juliana v. United States gained traction when a District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the case had merit to continue, and that "a climate system capable of sustaining human life" was a fundamental right under the United States Constitution.{{cite web |last=Sutter |first=John |date=9 March 2016 |title=Climate kids take on the feds |url=https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/opinions/sutter-oregon-kids-lawsuit-climate/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191223180045/https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/opinions/sutter-oregon-kids-lawsuit-climate/index.html |archive-date=23 December 2019 |access-date=23 October 2018 |work=CNN}} The lawsuit was eventually dismissed.

In October 2019, a group of 15 youths filed a lawsuit against the government of Canada, claiming that the government's lack of climate change action was a violation of their rights to life, liberty and equality. The lawsuit was dismissed in November 2020.{{Cite news |last=MacLean |first=Jason |date=2020-11-03 |title=Why the youth climate court case failed, and what's next for Canadian climate policy |url=https://theconversation.com/why-the-youth-climate-court-case-failed-and-whats-next-for-canadian-climate-policy-149064 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230122193356/https://theconversation.com/why-the-youth-climate-court-case-failed-and-whats-next-for-canadian-climate-policy-149064 |archive-date=2023-01-22 |access-date=2023-01-22 |work=The Conversation}}

Scholars have pointed out that there are also potential negative impacts of successful cases – sometimes referred to as backlash litigation. As the number of successful cases increases the energy transition risk to some companies operating in high-emitting sectors, it is possible that they will challenge government action on climate change. For example, they might argue that there was an alleged breach of international investment agreements even if governments' actions were taken to comply with a judicial decision. One example is the case of RWE v The Netherlands, in which RWE, a German energy company, filed suit against the Dutch government under the Energy Charter Treaty, alleging that the government failed to allow adequate time and resources to enable the company to transition away from coal.

A study from 2024 found that: "Nearly 50 of the more than 230 recorded cases filed in 2023 include non‑aligned arguments. The vast majority of these were filed in the US. At times, actors involved in such cases appear to be intentionally seeking to use legal tactics to obstruct climate action".Setzer J and Higham C (2024) [https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Global-trends-in-climate-change-litigation-2024_summary-brief.pdf Global trends in climate change litigation 2024: summary brief]. London: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science{{rp|7}}

• Climate justice
• Environmental law
• Human rights and climate change
• Oslo Principles on Global Obligations to Reduce Climate Change

{{reflist}}

{{Commons category|Climate litigation}}

• [http://climatecasechart.com Climate Change Litigation Databases], a database maintained by the Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School
• [https://climate-laws.org/litigation_cases Litigation Cases], a database maintained by the LSE Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
• [https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/science-hub-climate-litigation The UCS Science Hub for Climate Litigation], one aggregation of litigation-relevant resources

{{Climate change litigation|state=expanded}}

{{Climate change}}

Category:Climate change law

Category:Climate change

Category:Environmental case law